I don't think you don't understand, but still disagree. You say that you don't want to muddle the definition of truth, but it seems like you're the one with the muddled definition. It seems to me that most people use it in the wider sense. I believe I've even seen you do it.
-
-
-
Most people do, yes. Perhaps I have. I will be arguing that this is our default and it goes against our nature to distinguish but it is essential that we maintain an expectation that we do when discussing truth claims.
-
It is default because I think it's good enough to survive in the wild. Now we have science though and it is clear there is objective reality beyond human experience and the looser definition is not useful for that. Perhaps a concerted effort to narrow the definition will be good.
-
Because our emotions developed first and our reasoning came in second. Facts are slippery, Stories are sticky. I will be making this argument soon.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You value only science then say you despise examining cultural myths for meanings and affective value. That's interesting considering archaeology would tell you that myths are almost always enriched with meaning and affective value.
-
I said the opposite, didn't I? https://qmul.academia.edu/HelenPluckrose
-
I misread that as "likely" instead of "unlikely". That is my mistake.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But you try to do it scientifically?
-
I do, yes. I am interested in what can be known about history. But I am also interested in how people thought and believed and this is not very scientific at all.
-
Don't see why not, with the appropriate methodology, at the very least it could be.
-
Yeah, to sone extent. Postprosessual archaeology is trying some of the same thing and those poor fuckers don't even have contemporary written sources to rely on :] Subjective knowledge through methodology is a bitch, but not an utterly unreasonable one. Takes rigour tho.
-
What's wrong with the processual kind?
-
They were had bit too much logical positivism. Though there was in theory basically no limit to what scientific rigor & methodology could reveal of humans, but still shyed from what they mocked as 'paleopsychology' by largely focusing on social structures and materialism.
-
*thought But they gave us middle range theory, better methodology and more scientifically rigorous use of hypothesis and theory for postprosessuals to build on, so can't be too harsh!
-
But this post-processual thing is entirely subjectivist! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-processual_archaeology …
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.